Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka v. Biddadeppa
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100170 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO. 100002 OF 2020
Bench- THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
Decided On 30-05-2023
Facts of the case-
the Appellant’s marriage to the deceased, Pakkeeramma, 12 years prior to the incident. Initially, their relationship was cordial, but the Appellant began suspecting his wife’s fidelity, leading to frequent quarrels and physical assault. Despite advice from elders and neighbors, the Appellant persisted in his suspicions and abusive behavior. He even questioned the paternity of their three children, except for their daughter, Rajeshwari.
On 25.02.2017, in the backdrop of these circumstances, the Appellant allegedly assaulted Pakkeeramma, her sister Gangamma, and the minor children Pavithra, Nagaraj (also known as Rajappa), and Basamma with a chopper. Tragically, four of them died at the scene, while Basamma passed away on the way to the hospital.
The Appellant emerged from the house and proudly announced that he had attacked his wife and sister-in-law, accusing them of engaging in immoral activities. He also claimed to have harmed the three children whom he believed were not his own.
Consequently, a complaint was filed, and Crime No. 23/2015 was registered at Kampli Police Station for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant, and after cognizance of the offense was taken, the Committal Court initiated the trial proceedings. The Appellant was arrested and provided with a copy of the charge sheet. Charges were framed under Section 302 of the IPC, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial.
During the trial, the prosecution presented 36 witnesses out of the 66 listed in the charge sheet as PWs.1 to PW.36. Additionally, documentary evidence in the form of exhibits P.1 to P.51 and material objects marked as MOs.1 to MO.22 were submitted to support the prosecution’s case.
Upon the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the Appellant was confronted with the incriminating evidence, and his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was recorded. The Appellant denied the allegations against him and chose not to present any evidence in his defense.
Subsequently, after hearing the arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the trial court delivered the judgment of conviction and imposed the death penalty. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant has appealed before this court, represented by Sri S L Matti, a panel counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.
Relevant Provisions
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Related to |
| Sec. 302 | Punishment for murder. |
Judgement
After carefully examining the evidence provided by the witnesses and considering the circumstantial factors, the court concluded that the Appellant was responsible for the homicides. The court emphasized that the deaths were intentional killings, driven by the Appellant’s motive, as he had openly admitted to causing the deaths. Furthermore, eyewitnesses testified to seeing the Appellant immediately after the incident, wearing blood-stained clothes and carrying a bloodied chopper, which he later surrendered to the police. Witnesses also attested to the existence of frequent altercations between the Appellant and his wife, indicating a history of suspicion and conflict. Additionally, the court noted that the Appellant had meticulously planned the entire event by sending his surviving daughter to the house of another individual. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the Appellant’s actions were premeditated, motivated, and deliberate, leading to the murder of two adults and three children.
The court further highlighted the heinous nature of the crime, involving the murder of the Appellant’s wife, sister-in-law, and three young children, all under the age of 10. This brutality demonstrated the depravity of the Appellant’s actions. The court firmly stated that based on the evidence presented, it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant was responsible for the deaths of all five victims.
In affirming the death penalty, the court sought to identify any mitigating circumstances. It interacted with the accused, obtained reports from various authorities, and carefully reviewed them. However, the court observed that the manner in which the offense was committed, with the Appellant violently attacking two women and three children inside the house, inflicting multiple injuries, and later publicly proclaiming that he had killed “prostitutes” while holding a blood-covered chopper, was deeply shocking. This act of extreme violence disturbed the conscience of the court, despite its experience with numerous murder cases.
Having considered the aggravating circumstances, the court then turned to search for any significant mitigating factors. However, it found none of substance. The Appellant had destroyed his entire family based on unfounded suspicions, leaving no remaining family members to support his potential reformation. From every perspective, despite the court’s efforts to discover mitigating factors, none could be identified.
Therefore, taking into account all the aforementioned factors, the court concluded that the death penalty was warranted in this case.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
